Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The word "substantially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the word "substantially" is a required by the Applicant as part of the claimed invention or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omichi et al (US 20170175682; hereinafter Omichi).
As regarding claim 1, Omichi discloses the claimed invention for an inline fluid purifier comprising: a body including a first end, an opposing second end, and at least one side extending between the first end and the second end, the body including a central axis; a first endcap attached to the first end, the first endcap including an inline port arranged substantially parallel to the central axis; and a second endcap attached to the second end, the second endcap including an angled port; wherein the body includes an interior defined by the at least one side, the first endcap, and the second endcap; wherein the interior includes adsorbent media (annotated fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
258
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Omichi does not disclose the angled port arranged non-parallel to the central axis. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to orient the port at a non-parallel angle as a matter of routine design choice to achieve a desired fluid flow path, accommodate installation requirements, or optimized packaging within the fluid system.
As regarding claim 2, Omichi as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Omichi as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the angled port is arranged substantially perpendicular to the central axis. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the orientation of the second port such that it extends at approximately 90 degrees to the central axis, as selecting the orientation of fluid ports is a predictable design variation base on the desired routing of fluid conduits and available installation space.
As regarding claim 3, Omichi as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Omichi as modified discloses the claimed invention for a first filter (16, 17) positioned between the inline port and the adsorbent media, the first filter including a pore diameter; and a second filter (9, 10) positioned between the angled port and the adsorbent media, the second filter including a pore diameter.
As regarding claim 4, Omichi as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Omichi as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the pore diameter of the second filter (9, 10 – grid plate) is greater than the pore diameter of the first filter.
As regarding claim 5, Omichi as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Omichi as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the pore diameter of first filter and the pore diameter of the second filter are each within the range of 0.003 microns to 50 microns. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the pore diameter of first filter and the pore diameter of the second filter are each within the range of 0.003 microns to 50 microns in order to enhance fluid purifier performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As regarding claim 8, Omichi as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Omichi as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the second endcap includes an internal chamber in fluid communication with an internal passageway (annotated fig. 1) of the angled port and an internal channel in fluid communication with the internal chamber and the interior of the body.
As regarding claim 9, Omichi as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Omichi as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the internal passageway (annotated fig. 1) of the angled port extends at a non-parallel angle to the central axis, and wherein the internal channel extends substantially parallel to the central axis.
As regarding claim 10, Omichi as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Omichi as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the internal passageway (annotated fig. 1) of the angled port extends substantially parallel to the central axis.
As regarding claim 11, Omichi as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Omichi as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the inline port (annotated fig. 1) includes an internal passageway extending substantially parallel to the central axis.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omichi et al (US 20170175682; hereinafter Omichi), as applied supra, and further in view of Hertl et al (US 5417947; hereinafter Hertl).
As regarding claims 6 -7, Omichi as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Omichi as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the adsorbent media include molecular sieves with a pore diameter of less than 3.3 angstroms or less than 3.3 angstroms and greater than 2.6 angstroms. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the adsorbent media include molecular sieves with a pore diameter of less than 3.3 angstroms or less than 3.3 angstroms and greater than 2.6 angstroms in order to enhance fluid purifier performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Hertl (col 3 ln 3-11).
Claim(s) 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omichi et al (US 20170175682; hereinafter Omichi), as applied supra, and further in view of Bedford, Jr. (US 10702828; hereinafter Bedford).
As regarding claim 12, Omichi as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Omichi as modified discloses the claimed invention except for an assembly seal positioned between the inline port and the first endcap and an assembly seal positioned between the angled port and the second endcap. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide an assembly seal positioned between the inline port and the first endcap and an assembly seal positioned between the angled port and the second endcap in order to enhance fluid purifier performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Bedford (45, 46 of figs. 2-3B).
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omichi et al (US 20170175682; hereinafter Omichi), as applied supra, and further in view of Arno et al (US 20050199126; hereinafter Arno).
As regarding claim 13, Omichi as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Omichi as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein each of the inline port and angled port include a top portion including a diameter, a central portion including a diameter, and a bottom portion including a diameter, wherein the diameter of the central portion is larger than the diameters of the top portion or the bottom portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the invention was made to provide wherein each of the inline port and angled port include a top portion including a diameter, a central portion including a diameter, and a bottom portion including a diameter, wherein the diameter of the central portion is larger than the diameters of the top portion or the bottom portion in order to enhance fluid purifier performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Arno (33 of fig. 4).
Also, Examiner notes that mere duplication of parts (both inlet – inline port and outlet – angled port) has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art.
As regarding claim 14, Omichi as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Omichi as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein each of the inline port and angled port include an internal passageway extending between the top portion and the bottom portion (Arno – figs. 2-3).
As regarding claim 15, Omichi as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Omichi as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the bottom portion of the inline port is received in a corresponding cavity in the first endcap and wherein the bottom portion of the angled port is received in a corresponding cavity in the second endcap (Arno – figs. 2-3).
Claim(s) 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omichi et al (US 20170175682; hereinafter Omichi) in view of Arno et al (US 20050199126; hereinafter Arno), as applied supra, and further in view of Bedford, Jr. (US 10702828; hereinafter Bedford).
As regarding claim 16, Omichi as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Omichi as modified discloses the claimed invention except for an assembly seal positioned between the inline port and the first endcap and an assembly seal positioned between the angled port and the second endcap. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide an assembly seal positioned between the inline port and the first endcap and an assembly seal positioned between the angled port and the second endcap in order to enhance fluid purifier performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Bedford (45, 46 of figs. 2-3B).
As regarding claim 17, Omichi as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Omichi as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein each assembly seal includes a crush seal radially surrounding the bottom portion and abutting the central portion of the respective port, and an elastomeric seal radially surrounding the bottom portion of the respective port and abutting the crush seal (Bedford - 45, 46 of figs. 2-3B).
As regarding claim 18, Omichi as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Omichi as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the elastomeric seal fits within the cavity of the respective endcap and wherein the crush seal fits between the central portion of the respective port and the respective endcap (Bedford - 45, 46 of figs. 2-3B).
As regarding claim 19, Omichi as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Omichi as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the crush seal is a metal crush seal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the crush seal is a metal crush seal in order to enhance fluid purifier performance, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights